In its March 20 guidance, FDA addresses postmarket adverse event reporting for drugs, biologics, medical devices, combination products, and dietary supplements during a pandemic. Kathleen Sanzo, Jacqueline Berman, Michele Buenafe, and Dennis Gucciardo explain the guidance in this LawFlash.
Through FDA’s Policy for Certain REMS Requirements During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, FDA provides temporary relief from laboratory testing and imaging requirements for certain drugs and biologics subject to REMS with those specific prerequisites. These relaxed requirements will allow patients continued access to their medications during social distancing. Rebecca Dandeker and Jacqueline Berman dissect the new policy in their recently authored LawFlash.
The FDA announced on March 18 that it is suspending onsite routine domestic inspections in an effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) and help flatten the pandemic curve. This announcement follows a March 10 guidance that routine foreign inspections were suspended. For-cause inspections will proceed if deemed “mission-critical.” Dennis Gucciardo, Michele Buenafe, and Jaqueline Berman address the tools that FDA will use to oversee the safety and quality of FDA-regulated products during this emergency in their recently authored LawFlash.
Read the full LawFlash.
In light of the growing coronavirus (COVID-19) public health challenge, the FDA issued guidance on March 18 on general considerations for conducting clinical trials of medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The guidance aims to “assist sponsors in assuring the safety of trial participants, maintaining compliance with good clinical practice (GCP), and minimizing risks to trial integrity.”
Partners Kathleen Sanzo and Jacqueline Berman provide key takeaways from the guidance in this LawFlash.
The FDA issued guidance on March 20 for the manufacture of hand sanitizers by companies not previously registered to make OTC drugs. The guidance comes in response to hand sanitizer shortages during the coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency, particularly among employers in the healthcare and essential services sectors where employees are still present or interacting with consumers. Morgan Lewis lawyers Kathleen Sanzo and Jacqueline Berman authored a lawflash detailing issues for manufacturers and purchasers under the new policy.
Read the full LawFlash
With the increasing numbers of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and the declaration of a global pandemic by the World Health Organization, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries are assessing how this situation may impact business operations.
Some areas that companies should consider include the following:
- Supply chain disruption, including active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and excipient shortages
- Drug shortages and related FDA notices
- FDA inspection priority shifts
- Potential impacts on import surveillance
- Delays in FDA’s review of pending drug applications
- Possible impacts on clinical trials and necessary changes to relevant trial documents
- The impact on drug promotion and new risks created by the changing landscape
For further analysis, please see our March 13 LawFlash, Potential Impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on the Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and state agencies oversee the possession and use of radiopharmaceuticals and medical devices containing radioisotopes. In this regard, the NRC recently issued two information notices in response to medical events arising from the administration of radiopharmaceuticals.
The first, Information Notice 2019-11, alerts medical-use licensees to four strontium (Sr)-82/rubidium (Rb)-82 generator elution events that resulted in patients receiving concentrations of Sr-82 and Sr-85 in excess of regulatory requirements. The IN describes four separate events in which approximately 90 patients were administered Rb-82 chloride for cardiac imaging that contained Sr-82 and Sr-85 concentrations in excess of the regulatory limits identified in 10 CFR § 35.204.
FDA issued a draft guidance, Demonstrating Substantial Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological Products (Draft Guidance), on December 19, 2019, as an expansion of its 1998 guidance, Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and Biological Products (1998 Guidance). The 1998 Guidance provided examples of evidence that FDA could consider to be confirmatory evidence to potentially support FDA approval of a marketing application based on one adequate and well-controlled clinical trial. The new Draft Guidance provides further detail on clinical trial design considerations, as well as forms of confirmatory evidence that sponsors may consider when proposing to rely on a single adequate and well-controlled clinical trial.
As part of the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) overall reorganization of the Office of New Drugs, the former Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP), the FDA office responsible for approving cancer therapies, was recently restructured and renamed the Office of Oncologic Diseases (OOD).
Per Dr. Richard Pazdur, the acting OOD director, the reorganization will allow for greater stakeholder engagement and streamline the drug review process. OOD is now composed of six divisions, including three divisions of oncology.
US President Donald Trump signed a pair of appropriations bills into law on December 20, including bipartisan legislation intended to facilitate the development of generic and biosimilar products. The bill, previously known as the CREATES Act (H.R. 965/S. 340), allows developers of 505(b)(2) New Drug Application (NDA) and Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) products, as well as biosimilar products, to sue companies holding NDAs or Biological License Applications (BLAs) (each, a License Holder) that refuse to provide “sufficient quantities” of an approved reference drug or biologic on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” “Sufficient quantities” are those the developer determines it needs to conduct testing and other regulatory requirements to support an application. “Commercially reasonable, market-based terms” are defined as (1) the nondiscriminatory price at or below the most recent wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for the product, (2) a delivery schedule that meets the statutorily defined timetable, and (3) no additional conditions on the sale.